Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Russell Cook; According to a new study, the credibility of the alleged 97% climate consensus is so fragile, the 3% who dissent are completely disrupting climate action. And Naomi Oreskes is really important.
Who are the 3 Per Cent? The Connections Among Climate Change Contrarians
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Laura D. Young and Erin B. FitzDespite 97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming, the remaining 3 per cent play a critical role in keeping the debate about climate consensus alive. Analysis of climate change contrarians from multi-signatory documents reveals 3 per cent of signees to be climate experts, while the remaining 97 per cent do not meet expert criteria and are also involved with organizations and industries who make up the climate change countermovement. The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older. As a result, we explore other factors (for example, collective memories and ideological views) that may have also contributed to expert and non-expert views.
Read more: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/who-are-the-3-per-cent-the-connections-among-climate-change-contrarians/A4664E239F0774A37C20FE03689B34DD
One eye catching feature of the study is the number of mentions of Naomi Oreskes. She is given absolute prominence in the presented history of climate science narrative – 17 mentions in the study. Other high profile researchers such as Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick controversy don’t rate a single mention. A significant part of the study is dedicated to claiming people who criticise Oreskes are wrong. (h/t Russell)
So what motivates the 3% to oppose the 97% climate consensus? The authors appear to suggest contrarians are ignorant and biased.
…
A total of 81 per cent of the climate change contrarians received their highest level of college degree (that is, Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD, or level of degree relative to institution, location, and/or area of study) in 1985 or prior.Footnote 5 The most common time when contrarians received their degrees was the 1970s.Footnote 6 This suggests individuals receiving their degrees within the last thirty years are less likely to reject the climate change consensus. This pattern could be for several reasons, for example: new modeling or other scientific revelations not known at the time climate change contrarians received their degree; changes in how certain areas (for example, meteorology) approach research; or, as we suggest later, the impact of conservatism/neoliberalism on views of science and/or government
…
Discussion
What motivates experts and non-experts alike to pursue a position on climate change contrary to scientific consensus? The role of conservative politics, conservative think tanks, and industry efforts that make up the CCCM is well documented; however, our findings reveal other similarities among contrarians worthy of consideration.
…
Neoliberalism emerged as a driving force to oppose government oversight and regulation, largely related to backlash from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and subsequent expansion of the federal government. While tenets of neoliberalism (that is, a laissez-faire approach to the market with a heavy emphasis on deregulation and free trade) would become central to CCCM objectives, the ideology pervaded academic circles far earlier (McCright and Dunlap Reference McCright and Dunlap2011a; Oreskes and Conway Reference Oreskes and Conway2010). In fact, while the ideology is most notably associated with the creation of the Chicago School of economics, it was not unique to just Chicago. Neoliberalism was transnational in nature, permeating into other academic and political circles with the help of several institutions established solely to push this ideology (Mirowski and Plehwe Reference Mirowski and Plehwe2009). As a result, by the 1950s, there was “an all-out assault on virtually every aspect of Keynesian economics” led, most notably, by Milton Friedman (Yergin and Stanislaw Reference Yergin, Stanislaw, Yergin and Stanislaw1998, para. 8). By the 1960s and 1970s, neoliberalism was a prominent theory within economics and other disciplines. As a result, much like collective memories pertinent to older contrarians’ formative years, it is reasonable to believe that neoliberal ideology would have impacted contrarians’ attitudes toward science and government prior to the emergence of the CCCM.
…
Read more: Same link as above
The funniest part of the study is the authors are both political scientists, who feel justified criticising people they claim are non experts for attempting to contribute to the climate debate, without having the self awareness to look in the mirror and question the credibility and depth of their own knowledge.
Maybe the 81% of the 3% of CCCs who got educated prior to 1986 were taught the scientific method so win the debate against climate modellers and consensus merchants.
As we all know, anyone with a engineering degree learn what they need to know until they graduate. After that they learn nothing new, they just apply what they have learned. Outside college or university they have no-one to help them learn new stuff.
I work in the law , and in court cases you usually have two highly educated people with different viewpoints battling it out . The same is true of climate scientists some have very different opinions . I work in counter fraud and you can see some fraud markers in those who promote climate change , the markers are 1) Shut down debate or enquiry – the fraudster doesn’t want you looking 2) outrageous claims – these are designed to muddy the waters of an investigation 3 ) You don’t know what your talking about – again muddy the waters of the investigation 4) personal attacks – these are designed to devalue your evidence 5) Appeals to a higher authority – this is an attempt to intimidate you 6) reluctance in disclosing all the facts and figures – they don’t want you to know
yeah someone should tell CERES to stop producing disinformation about LWR not being trapped
classic motte and bailey
https://ordinary-times.com/2014/11/12/an-example-of-the-motte-and-bailey-doctrine/
The motte for climate change activists are the following:
The above points are highly defensible because Science. I believe they are true (though I do so only via trust in others rather than having evaluated any of the research involved personally).
Activists, however, do not sit in this motte for long. They often go on to make a lot of other claims in the bailey:
The Guardian is now claiming the Climate Change Consensus to be 99.9%. Wow!
NB : All quotes are from the Young & Fitz article (in the “British Journal of Political Science”, it definitely doesn’t qualify as a full “peer-reviewed scientific paper”).
– – – – –
From page 5, the last paragraph of the “Methods” section :
That isn’t (multiple) “criteria”, that’s one “criterion”.
From page 8, at the start of the second paragraph of the “Publications” section :
I repeat, that’s one “criterion”.
– – – – –
Jumping back to page 6, the second paragraph of the “Education and Professional Experience” section :
OK.
Full disclosure : I have a (Masters-level only, Electrical and Electronic) engineering degree.
By their definition I am “irrelevant” … which is perfectly fine with me as long as the context is clearly laid out (the above paragraph didn’t exactly “jump out at me” when first skimming the article).
– – – – –
Returning to page 5, the first sentence of the “Results” section :
What sort of “neutral / unbiased / impartial” person would propose an idea for an article (or paper) with that particular “aim” ?
Why should anyone believe that the wide range of “contrarians”, from the mildest of “lukewarmers” (such as myself) all the way to the “Sky Dragon Slayer” nutters, have a single “profile” ?
– – – – –
On page 12, in the “Affiliations” section :
The ancient Greeks knew that “argument from authority” was a logical fallacy over 2000 years ago.
Deciding that “our finding” that people who are not “climate experts” — i.e. people who don’t have both “a degree in climatology (or a similar field)” and “20 climate-related, peer-reviewed publications” under their belt — shouldn’t be “allowed” to express AN OPINION on the subject is … what’s the right term here ? …
… “authoritarian” ? …
… “totalitarian” ? …
… “fascist” ??? …
… “nukking futz” ? …
Separate issue.
On page 1 :
That’s “anthropogenic climate change (ACC)”, not simply “climate change” (see IPCC AR6, Annex VII, Glossary, page AVII-11).
– – – – –
In the “Conclusion” section, page 16 :
Question 1 : What will be the final “global warming” due to ACC, and when will it occur ?
– 2°C (above “pre-industrial” levels)
– 3°C
– 4°C
– 5°C
– Other (please specify the “consequence”)
Question 2 : What will be the increase in global sea-levels due to ACC in the year 2100 ?
– < 50cm (above the 1990 level)
– > 50cm
– > 1m
– > 2m
– Other (please specify the “consequence”)
Question 3 : How many hurricanes (/ tropical cyclones), with what combined ACE score, will occur globally in the year 2100 ?
So… Since I believe that CO2 can have an impact on the atmosphere and potentially temperature – doesn’t that mean that I am part of the 97%? However because I do not think based of observational data ( rather than the silly modeling that suggests otherwise ) that it constitutes a crisis does that mean that I am part of the 3%?
Additionally since I view moving to Solar/Wind as a silly method to mitigate the effects of man on the planet, rather I would suggest we move to nuclear and continue to utilize Carbon source mostly for transportation purposes rather than as for electric uses ( until we come up with a better fuel source for vehicles ). Does that make me dangerous?
Hmmmm…
Like vaccines: the vaccines are great and the small unvaxxed minority gave COVID to everybody else.